Sugar Should be Taxed
CON (5 arguments)
Grabbers:
1) “In dealing with an obesity and public health crisis, the worst thing we can do is tell people not to have sugar, which is exactly what a sugar tax is telling consumers.”-Fergus Clydesdale.
2) A proposed sugar tax in San Francisco would cause businesses to lose about $63 million in annual revenues, related to customer purchases redirected to lower-price competitors located outside the city’s borders and an overall decrease in demand for a product.
A 2006 study by Columbia University found that “sugar taxes” harmed low-income families more than higher-income families. In the study sample, families with high incomes, defined at $100,000 annually, suffered harm of $24.29, half the harm of $47.38 incurred by poor families, defined at $20,000 annually. This was the amount of money lost per month and is far too much money for families already in poverty. Research published by the Forum for Health Economics & Policy supports this claim. The report, which measures the impact a 10 percent fat tax would have on families of varying income levels, concludes that "almost the entire burden of the fat tax falls on poor families. The regulatory burden for the average family declines rapidly with income. ...Thus the burden at $20,000 is nearly 10 times larger than that at $100,000." Additionally, a 2008 study published by the Journal of Urban Health found an association between sugar consumption and race, age, and income. The paper found that individuals with low incomes were nearly twice as likely to purchase and consume sugar as were those whose incomes were significantly higher, meaning a tax on sugar will disproportionately harm low income individuals.
According to a document published by the California Legislative Analyst Office, a proposed sugar tax in San Francisco would cause businesses to lose about $63 million in annual revenues, related to customer purchases redirected to lower-price competitors located outside the city’s borders and an overall decrease in demand for a product. The $63 million reduction in sugar sales by businesses would translate into total losses of 19,000 jobs, mostly in food and beverage retail stores, restaurants, and related establishments directly affected by the lost sales. However, many other industries would be indirectly affected, including wholesalers, transportation companies, and business-service providers, leading to a further reduction of 150-200 jobs. These jobs would be lost over the course of a year. Brian Rainville, spokesman for Teamsters Joint Council 25 in San Francisco, said the new tax would cut “good, middle-class jobs” that President Barack Obama said were key to economic recovery. A sugar tax implemented in Denmark that lasted less than a year cost the country an estimated 1,300 jobs, mainly due to a trimming of workers in food retail sectors.
Taxes on sugary snacks lead many consumers to replace the taxed food with equally unhealthy foods. Poorer consumers react to higher food prices not by changing their diets but by consuming even fewer healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables, and eating more processed foods. For instance, taxes levied specifically on sugar content increase saturated fat consumption. Also, if these poorer consumers have to stop buying food with sugar in it and buy other processed foods, the Huffington Post calculates that it will cost them $550 more per year. If these families were to replace the sugary food with healthier food such as fruits and vegetables, it would cost them up to $1500 more!
If sugar becomes too expensive but companies still need to sweeten their food or drink, they will turn to unhealthier substitutes for sugar. These include aspartame, saccharin, sucralose, and many more. These cause many more diseases and medical problems than sugar. The introduction of aspartame into the food supply of the United States began in the summer of 1981. Since that time, the incidence of Alzheimer’s deaths has increased 100 fold (10,000%). Autism has, with no explanation, increased 25 times (2500%). Autoimmune diseases have reached epidemic proportions, with Lupus (SLE) up 300%, and Multiple Sclerosis, Type II Diabetes and Rheumatoid Arthritis headed out of control. Cancers, the hallmark of formaldehyde exposure, have exploded. Skin cancer has shot up over 400%, liver cancer has tripled, kidney cancer has doubled, and breast cancer is up 50%. Methanol, a poison hidden in aspartame and some other foods, is converted to formaldehyde at the very locations in the human body where these diseases originate. Judge, aspartame alone is causing many bad diseases and we obviously don’t want our citizens to get more diseases because of artificial sweeteners.
One alternative is to encourage people to exercise more and to increase their daily physical activity. This can be done through many medias such as clinics or classes. A tax will just discourage people and a class would teach them. Keith Ayob, associate professor of pediatrics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine agreed that food is not the only culprit for obesity. Instead, the focus should lie on restoring physical activity programs and offering incentives and tax breaks for those who implement healthy behaviors – what he called, "actions that reward good behavior rather than punishing bad behavior. "To solve the obesity crisis, people don't need more legislation, they need more motivation," he said. “In dealing with an obesity and public health crisis, the worst thing we can do is tell people not to have sugar, which is exactly what a sugar tax is telling consumers." Fergus Clydesdale, a food science professor says.